Bishop Fox and Fr Neal

You have been misinformed. You assert on page 3 of your November 18 issue that I told Fr Neal not to attend the symposium on "The Catholic Homosexual" at Westminster, This is not true. At no time did I forbid him to attend it,
Not having seen the remarks attributed to Fr John Ashton, I thought it was a meeting of Catholics to discuss on Catholic principles how best they could bring pastoral aid to their brethren who have homosexual problems. It would never occur to me to forbid any priest to attend a meeting of the character imagined this one to be
From meetings such as these I distinguish sharply those provided by organisations that start from the principle that all sexual orientations or leanings are of equal validity and worth. This principle I find irreconcilable with Catholic teaching.
Fr Neal, before he went to the Bangor Chaplaincy, had helped set up a branch of such an organisation in North Wales. This organisation seems to apply its principle to action. It stresses that it is not an introduction bureau, but it does arrange social events to enable lonely homosexuals to meet one another.
Now I am convinced that Fr Neal's sole motive in helping to set up this organisation was to provide pastoral care for people with problems arising from their homosexuality, and that he did not at the time perceive that the fundamental principle and some of the practices of the organisation cannot be reconciled with the Church's teaching.
Before I knew what he had done, Fr Neal had of his own volition renounced all connection with the organisation. Si, although 1 would have asked him to leave the organisation had 1 known of his involvement, the occasion did not arise.
The really sad thing is that despite the excellent qualities as a chaplain that I and everyone else see in Fr Neal, his error in pastoral judgment means that he is saddled with the reputation of being a founding-father of the organisation I have described.
Because of this the management committee of the chaplaincy have informed me of their unanimous judgment that Fr Neal's holding of the office of chaplain poses a threat to the good name of the chaplaincy. I have therefore felt compelled to withdraw his recent appointment as chaplain. t Langton D. Fox Bishop of Menevia Bishop's House.
Wrexham, Clwyd.
In your issue of November IS. you report that It Bill Neal has been required by his bishop to discontinue a local branch of "Friend." a Christian homosexual counselling service, and you quote the opinion that there may have been a misunderstanding of the nature of his pastoral work.
I may he among a minority of your readers in having learnt something ahoul this aspect of Fr Neal's phstoral ministry: but it cannot but be of concern to the majority. Fr Neal, in North Wales, met two cases of young homosexuals in his area who died at their own hand because they could not face the problems a ah which they would have had to live. and they could not obtain any help from outside.
People preferred not only to pass by this "embarrassment" on the other side, but to pretend that it did not exist at all: not to Fr Neal, From the first. however, he faced opposition in establishing a branch of "Friend" which could extend a Christian lifeline to people with such homosexual problems. Now it seems the opposition has won.
Sonic people may indeed feel that homosexuals are better taking their own lives: Christians will not he found among them. But how many inure lives must be lost before others than Fr Neal accept the responsihility of Christian love towards them?
May we ask the Church authorities in North Wales how they intend now to help those who in their unfortunate despair our Lord will surely count among the least of these my brethren" on the Last Day?
Richard Gem Southfields,
London, SWI 8.
There were a number of inaccuracies in your article concerning the Bishop of Menevia and me which appeared in The Catholic Herald of November VB.
1 want to make it clear that the fault does not lie in any way with the Catholic Herald but with the Bishop and me. As I was unwilling to discuss the matter with your reporter without the bishop's permission and as he was even more unwilling to grant it, the Herald was left with a series of factual and nonfactual bits of information which was then strung together to form an inaccurate less report. Had i been keen to abide by his request and he more anxious td let the facts be known, the article would have been thoroughly accurate. I have certainly learnt a lesson from this episode; I sincerely hope the bishop has, too. (Fr) W. E. Neal